AMD is no longer world fastest cpu?

[Rottie]

I have been out of CPU world so I saw new AMD's 6 core CPU but I assumed they are not fastest as Intel CPU right? AMD are far behind Intel new Sandy Bridge CPU....AMD still struggling again?

 

[thescreensavers]

I thought AMD hasn't had the fastest CPU since Athlon 64 90nm line?

 

[IntelUser2000]

Yep, Core 2 in mid/late 2006 took the performance crown away, and Intel still has the crown.

 

[BD231]

They're currently two process generations behind Intel, so yes, AMD sucks again at the moment if you're buying " right this second ". Their CPU's suck up more power all while offering less performance than their competitor per usual :awe:. The real shocker, their products are overpriced now!!! That's AMD though. You can count on them never figuring a way to one up Intel that doesn't mean potential bankruptcy or net them much of any positive financial gain . They suck at the CPU market, but I suppose we should be glad we have anything at this point considering how willing they are to play their hand in foreign tech market (video cards, ect.).

Apparently the best they can do is let other people design chips and buy up their tech groups in order to keep themselves in business. AMD gets pretty creative but never in a way that has them gaining any ground on Intel. AMD's inability to compete let Intel devour the market age's ago. Unfortunately for AMD things aren't going to change until a bigger, more financially capable entity enters the mix and points their ship in the right direction.

 

[SirGCal]

I wouldn't agree with all that. Intel does hold the crown again but depending what you're doing, AMD is not that far behind. And as for the price, I can't build a low-end 'i' system cheaper than a 6-core AMD system. The i7 is a kick-butt CPU but... Plus AMD's low power usage ratings are what they are most known for, especially in the server market. Now if you're building a gaming only system with no real limited budget, sure i7 right now is a great choice. But at the same time, there's rarely game my system won't run just as well (and that's at stock clocks... AMD's BE chips are also known to overclock and unlock cores extremely well on average if that's your thing.). It's more about the system as a whole then just one superior part. Plus, if you're doing other things like I do, the AMD might be right up your alley, especially for the price if that's important. Or if you're building something like an HTPC, I can not build an Intel version as capable as I can an AMD version for the price.

In the end it really just ends up with what your priorities are and what you are going to do with it. Either manufacturer has great options. Intel holds the king of the hill at the moment. But AMD is not as far behind as some might have you believe. Plus this year is going to be very interesting... Hopefully AMD get's back into the battle for the crown. It can only help consumers in the end no matter who they prefer.

 

[paperwastage]

I wouldn't agree with all that. Intel does hold the crown again but depending what you're doing, AMD is not that far behind. And as for the price, I can't build a low-end 'i' system cheaper than a 6-core AMD system. .

for cheap system builds(eg CPU < 150, mobo < 100), AMD Athlon x4 / Phenom x2(with possibility of x4 unlock) is pretty good

otherwise, the new i5 2500k is just cheap enough(cpu ~ 200, mobo ~ 100) to justify the additional $50 cost, especially b/c power consumption is 50-100W lower than an AMD counterpart

no reason to ever get an X6(CPU ~ 150-200) unless you are upgrading your current AM3 rig, or catch one for $100

 

[GaiaHunter]

for cheap system builds(eg CPU < 150, mobo < 100), AMD Athlon x4 / Phenom x2(with possibility of x4 unlock) is pretty good

otherwise, the new i5 2500k is just cheap enough(cpu ~ 200, mobo ~ 100) to justify the additional $50 cost, especially b/c power consumption is 50-100W lower than an AMD counterpart

no reason to ever get an X6(CPU ~ 150-200) unless you are upgrading your current AM3 rig, or catch one for $100

You can get motherboard+quad cpu (even with full L3$ if you are unlocking)+4GB ram for the price of an iCore quad CPU alone.

For a $200-$250 upgrade it will give you very decent performance. And it it will let you toss a $250-300 GPU in there for <$500 upgrade.

There won't be many games/applications where such setup won't give you enjoyable performance/usage.

 

[Arkadrel]

Amd hasnt had the "crown" for along time...
however they still over "bang for buck" alternatives to intels.

also intel has this bad habbit of forceing you to change ram/mother board, almost ever singel time they put out a new processor, which will add up and end up costing you alot (depending on how often you upg). In general Id say Intel motherboards usuaully cost more too.

 

[nyker96]

I have been out of CPU world so I saw new AMD's 6 core CPU but I assumed they are not fastest as Intel CPU right? AMD are far behind Intel new Sandy Bridge CPU....AMD still struggling again?

It must be quite some time ago that you checked into the CPU world ;]

 

[BD231]

I wouldn't agree with all that. Intel does hold the crown again but depending what you're doing, AMD is not that far behind. And as for the price, I can't build a low-end 'i' system cheaper than a 6-core AMD system. The i7 is a kick-butt CPU but... Plus AMD's low power usage ratings are what they are most known for, especially in the server market. Now if you're building a gaming only system with no real limited budget, sure i7 right now is a great choice. But at the same time, there's rarely game my system won't run just as well (and that's at stock clocks... AMD's BE chips are also known to overclock and unlock cores extremely well on average if that's your thing.). It's more about the system as a whole then just one superior part. Plus, if you're doing other things like I do, the AMD might be right up your alley, especially for the price if that's important. Or if you're building something like an HTPC, I can not build an Intel version as capable as I can an AMD version for the price.

In the end it really just ends up with what your priorities are and what you are going to do with it. Either manufacturer has great options. Intel holds the king of the hill at the moment. But AMD is not as far behind as some might have you believe. Plus this year is going to be very interesting... Hopefully AMD get's back into the battle for the crown. It can only help consumers in the end no matter who they prefer.

You're comparing programs (games) that are coded for hardware that was released six years ago my friend (xbox 360/PS3). Anyone could sit around and watch five years of technological advancement run app's programed for six year old tech effortlessly. Terrible comparison, an x6 CPU from AMD gets its ass kicked in every other area at completely competitive price's by a CPU that has two less cores and similar clock speeds.

I don't think you've been paying attention.

 

[BladeVenom]

The good news is that AMD is coming out with a new design soon, Bulldozer. You'll definitely want to check back to see how that compares.

 

[Bryf50]

especially b/c power consumption is 50-100W lower than an AMD counterpart

That's just false.

 

[SirGCal]

You're comparing programs (games) that are coded for hardware that was released six years ago my friend (xbox 360/PS3). Anyone could sit around and watch five years of technological advancement run app's programed for six year old tech effortlessly. Terrible comparison, an x6 CPU from AMD gets its ass kicked in every other area at completely competitive price's by a CPU that has two less cores and similar clock speeds.

I don't think you've been paying attention.

That's not true. A lot of productivity software and things like encoding tools have an excellent execution comparison compared to similarly priced Intels. IF you're trying to compare stronger i7's vs AMD, ya; duh, they're faster. We know... But my 6-core OCs easily to 4GHz and does what I need faster then I could afford an Intel rig (especially considering that would require a new motherboard every evolution which also means a new Windows OEM license for each motherboard...). But if you're back to games again; who cares as almost no one has made a good game with a modern engine in half a decade. But there's plenty of apps where AMD chips an keep right up and/or surpass i3/i5 and even lower i7 chips. As I said, it depends entirely what you are going to do. And I still can't find a better bang for the buck than AMD offers right now especially with lower end parts that often unlock to the highest-end parts performance rates and beyond.

It's not uncommon for like an $80 (Retail package 555) AMD CPU to unlock to three or four cores at 4GHz or more. Or run fewer cores and run them hotter (good for gamers). Until software really starts to take use of multiple cores, most users will have an advantage with hotter/fewer cores. But there are people like myself who's complicated works or software choices benefit from more units. It all comes down to what your priorities are.

I only game maybe 1-5&#37; of my computing time... Games are NOT my priority. To think those are all of my 'programs' would be wholly inaccurate and grossly incorrect. And sure if I could spend a grand just on the CPU alone, I'd throw in for a Gulftown. I'd love one... But since I built my whole system for less, that wouldn't make much sense, plus both sides (hopefully) will have something better this year so... If you're going to jump on the king of the hill, you should do it right at release or wait for something to knock it down a peg and cheapen it's price. But again, we're right back to the exact same thing I've been saying; It's all up to the user and what their priorities/needs are.

And if you're back to games again; most of 'those games' are the best games we have available since every darn developer is just making horrible console ports anymore. So if gaming is all you're after, that would beg the question of why spend so much $ to run 6 year old software anyhow?

 

[aigomorla]

But my 6-core OCs easily to 4GHz and does what I need faster then I could afford an Intel rig

when was the word affordable paired with world fastest cpu?

And i had 2 gulftown's which would spank your X6 left, right, up, down, and sideways silly.

AMD is behind bud... far behind in things like encoding.

And once u start ocing a intel, they have a higher average ceiling then AMD's.

 

[SirGCal]

when was the word affordable paired with world fastest cpu?

And i had 2 gulftown's which would spank your X6 left, right, up, down, and sideways silly.

AMD is behind bud... far behind in things like encoding.

And once u start ocing a intel, they have a higher average ceiling then AMD's.

Comparing the Gulftown to 'mainstream' is like racing a ferrari against a bicycle... Hardly even close. But since as I said, I built my entire system which does everything I need for less then the cost of just that CPU, I'll stick with my AMD. Sure if I had endless pockets, I'd love a gulftown... I've never said AMD even had anything to compete in that particular area. But it's hardly mainstream.

From the OP, it seems by their words they are considering an upgrade for a quite old system that has served them till now. So I'm just guessing that somewhere in their mind is a budget. If not, then by all means Gulftown can't be beat right now. I've said that repeatedly in almost every post. But once you start going dollar for dollar, it becomes a different story. Right now, I just can't justify the extreme cost of Gulftown for any system. Even my hard-core encoders and rendering boxes. They just don't spank them 'enough' to make it worth the cost.

But instead of picking apart someone's post; why not take it as a whole as it is intended. And yet again; it comes down to the individual user and their needs and requirements. I've said this every time. And if you look; I have NEVER said that AMD is the only one to buy... I never would. Just because that happens to be what I'm running right now for my primary rig, only means I could not find a better bang for the money for my particular needs at the time. I wanted an i7 rig sure but the cost was just too high, even waiting for specials as I almost always do... I couldn't get the parts I needed/wanted in the Intel Flavor this time around for the budget I had (and not get the quality I demand anyhow). But then if most people knew what I actually paid for my system, they'd probably be sick to their stomachs. Right now, I just get a better deal on AMD parts. Significantly actually. But even going retail, it would be hard to beat at the time.

It seems here everyone keeps focusing back on just one particular item. If that's how you spend your $, best to ya. But most smarter purchasers look over their options and research their potential buying power to make the best decision they can for their needs. Everyone wants a Ferrari/Porsche/Mclaren/Lambo/etc., but what can everyone afford. I don't think anyone would argue that a Mustang Cobra would compete with a Mclaren F1, but I doubt few would try to argue it is not a kick-tail and fun muscle car to drive that is more then most anyone may need in their life.

And I'll I've been saying repeatedly now this whole time is that people need to make their own decisions and choices to weigh their important factors and what they need to spend their $ on. And I'm sorry but in my mind, CPUs over $300 are just too expensive right now. And Intel has plenty under that limit also. That's my priority. And Intel has plenty of options. But for what I do, for me, this was the best choice at the time for the $ I had and purchasing options available to me. To even try to argue that point against me would be simply stupid.

If you absolutely have to have your Mclaren, and right now; as I've said a dozen times already, there's no other choice but the Gulftown. But if you're more cost sensitive, the line between them starts to blur significantly.

 

[Voo]

when was the word affordable paired with world fastest cpu?

And i had 2 gulftown's which would spank your X6 left, right, up, down, and sideways silly.

Uh yeah gulftowns, sweet - sorry, but those are hardly the fastest CPUs out there. Sure from 1k to six digits upwards is a steep step, but then price isn't important

Different scenarios have different needs and price (not just the purchase price though) is almost always one of them - ignoring that is just ignorant or only of academic interest (well and I assume it's easier to brag with it). And then we still ignore the most important question here - "fastest" in what regard (throughput, latency, which benchmark,..) and what exactly do we count (peak power of a GPU is certainly higher than that of any CPU out there)?

 

[dac7nco]

Uh yeah gulftowns, sweet - sorry, but those are hardly the fastest CPUs out there.

What (x86) CPU did you find that's faster than a Gulftown? AMD doesn't have ANYTHING worth buying for a workstation above $200 anymore, and when Sandy Bridge i3s become available, they won't have anything worth over ~$130.

Daimon

 

[mnewsham]

What (x86) CPU did you find that's faster than a Gulftown? AMD doesn't have ANYTHING worth buying for a workstation above $200 anymore, and when Sandy Bridge i3s become available, they won't have anything worth over ~$130.

Daimon

I am waiting for the 20th of Feb. so I can finally tell people there is pretty much NO reason to go AMD anymore...

 

[dac7nco]

I am waiting for the 20th of Feb. so I can finally tell people there is pretty much NO reason to go AMD anymore...

AMD is going to be one of those companies which is saved by the US taxpayers ala GM, unfortunately. I started wondering about their survival when they went fab-less. It's kind of sad, really... Bulldozer will either make them or break them, but it may be just a band-aid.

Daimon

 

[Voo]

What (x86) CPU did you find that's faster than a Gulftown?

When did we say anything of x86? The question is fastest "CPU" which at most excludes GPUs. There are more CPU manufacterers than Intel and AMD around - sure those CPUs are much more expensive and not really for consumers, but hey - it wasn't me who started the "We want the fastest CPU regardless of price" competition.

 

[dac7nco]

Okay, then I want a (imaginary) 5GHz Power7 workstation. I think Rottie's point was Intel or AMD (x86) in the consumer or enterprise marketplace, so no - AMD has very little place in this world anymore. People keep saying that without AMD Intel would jack prices sky high, and IMO, we're close to living without AMD now, and Intel's prices are really quite low.

It's going to take AMD many years, at best, to recover from this (self-created) disaster, and while being a cheerleader isn't my style, Intel's tick-tock process has been damned impressive these last five years.

Daimon

 

[BD231]

That's not true. A lot of productivity software and things like encoding tools have an excellent execution comparison compared to similarly priced Intels. IF you're trying to compare stronger i7's vs AMD, ya; duh, they're faster. We know... But my 6-core OCs easily to 4GHz and does what I need faster then I could afford an Intel rig (especially considering that would require a new motherboard every evolution which also means a new Windows OEM license for each motherboard...). But if you're back to games again; who cares as almost no one has made a good game with a modern engine in half a decade. But there's plenty of apps where AMD chips an keep right up and/or surpass i3/i5 and even lower i7 chips. As I said, it depends entirely what you are going to do. And I still can't find a better bang for the buck than AMD offers right now especially with lower end parts that often unlock to the highest-end parts performance rates and beyond.

It's not uncommon for like an $80 (Retail package 555) AMD CPU to unlock to three or four cores at 4GHz or more. Or run fewer cores and run them hotter (good for gamers). Until software really starts to take use of multiple cores, most users will have an advantage with hotter/fewer cores. But there are people like myself who's complicated works or software choices benefit from more units. It all comes down to what your priorities are.

I only game maybe 1-5% of my computing time... Games are NOT my priority. To think those are all of my 'programs' would be wholly inaccurate and grossly incorrect. And sure if I could spend a grand just on the CPU alone, I'd throw in for a Gulftown. I'd love one... But since I built my whole system for less, that wouldn't make much sense, plus both sides (hopefully) will have something better this year so... If you're going to jump on the king of the hill, you should do it right at release or wait for something to knock it down a peg and cheapen it's price. But again, we're right back to the exact same thing I've been saying; It's all up to the user and what their priorities/needs are.

And if you're back to games again; most of 'those games' are the best games we have available since every darn developer is just making horrible console ports anymore. So if gaming is all you're after, that would beg the question of why spend so much $ to run 6 year old software anyhow?

You've got a nice system bro make no mistake, I'm just not going to defend a CPU that's soundly beaten when the cost to achieve that added performance is barely there. Why anyone would mention a $1,000 CPU in this thread is beyond me, AMD dose not have a CPU with that kind of performance which is exactly why it's $1,000. I have an PII x3 myself and I've never once purchased an Intel CPU in my life because of their typically massive premium. At the moment I'm just focusing on the products Intel has released within AMD's current price bracket. Given the options no, AMD six core part is not worth its cost right now to anyone no matter what their *needs* are. You can put together a sandy bridge system for merely an extra fifty bucks, and the kicker, it's actually worth every penny over the x6.

ANYWHO. I won't rant any longer. The Phenom II is EOL right now, not trying to harp on your system I'm just saying from a technological stand point I really don't think you understand core per core what Intel is doing to AMD right now. It's not pretty.

 

[shamans33]

AMD doesn't have the fastest CPU but most of their CPUs are priced better than Intel's. Their platform (motherboards) are also cheaper in general.

 

[IGemini]

Yes, I remember it well...the time when AMD lost the crown and the FX-60 was no longer the fastest I got my E6600 for 1/3 of that price.

 

[tweakboy]

Bulldozer 12 core VS 2700K 6 core

and the winner is AMD !!! end of story